What if Winston Churchill had ended up converting to some form of socialism or fascism during his political career? While he was from a distinguished political family and hardly an outsider, that didn't preclude individuals such as Oswald Mosley from being proponents of extreme ideologies. Note that this doesn't entail Churchill being either an orthodox socialist or fascist. I could very easily see even a socialist Churchill in the Labour Party advocating for a sort of "social imperialism" based on the British Empire's might.
Fascist or Socialist Churchill
- Thread starter Marius Mazzini
- Start date
Chris Nation
Banned
Winston Churchill is not going to convert to fascism or socialism without such profound changes in his life and personality that effectively make him...not Winston Churchill.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Not so difficult in the 1920s when Churchill was a pretty committed anti-socialist. His actions in the General Strike could have been a waypoint in a journey to the far-right.
There's another way to approach this - change the context, not the man.....
If Socialism or prototype-Fascism became the dominant ideology of the U.K. at an earlier time-frame (perhaps due to Britain's loss in an ALT WW1 etc.) causing an effective on-party state, then butterflies may remove Churchill from politics altogether. However, if he stayed in politics it would mean that it is possible that he would "embrace" the dominant ideology (even if he was a somewhat dissenting voice within the party) in order to stay relevant.
If Socialism or prototype-Fascism became the dominant ideology of the U.K. at an earlier time-frame (perhaps due to Britain's loss in an ALT WW1 etc.) causing an effective on-party state, then butterflies may remove Churchill from politics altogether. However, if he stayed in politics it would mean that it is possible that he would "embrace" the dominant ideology (even if he was a somewhat dissenting voice within the party) in order to stay relevant.
"anti-Socialist"<>"Fascist". There have been a lot of anti-Socialists who weren't Fascists including Libertarians among others.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
True, that doesn't signify he would be an out-&-out Fascist, but the link below makes interesting reading
https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL118.htm
I do not think a Fabian Socialist Churchill is totally out of the question, but you would have to butterfly or alter a lot of events that occurred while he was a Liberal and possibly World War 1. He never forgave the Trades Union movement for believing he ordered troops to fire on striking miners, for example, but if you can engineer a situation where the movement supports him and the Labour party have a stronger Fabian element and are more electorally successful earlier, you could see Churchill crossing the floor that way perhaps before Mosley as the Liberal party disintegrates. I have to agree that a Fascism turn is more likely, it is an accident of politics and the strength of Jewish and socialist opposition that the Britain of the 20s and 30s did not align itself with Aryan supremacists given the views of its ruling class.
And fascism is a socialist/syndicalist offshoot in the first place in reaction to the failure of Internatiol socialism at the beginning of WW1
Derek Pullem
Donor
Churchill was the arch-pragmatist - if he thought that Fascism was necessary to protect the nation against extremism then he might embrace it for as long as it would be required to stabilise the situation. In a way that is what effectively happened in OTL.
Fascism does not equal the Nazis which is why Churchill was prepared to overlook the failings of the Franco regime and the early Mussolini regime.
To be fair he did say
Fascism does not equal the Nazis which is why Churchill was prepared to overlook the failings of the Franco regime and the early Mussolini regime.
To be fair he did say
So if the British state was threatened by a Nazi takeover I could see Churchill positioning himself as a "man of the people", a comrade to all. Or if the Russians were coming then he'd be the first to press the Right rhetoric into service.
This point of view is definitely something that overstates the degree to which fascism has links to socialism/communism. Fascism certainly was a child of European socialist ideas, but by the same logic it was equally the child of the European right. It was described by its pioneers as a Third Way that took philosophies, tactics, and ideas from a spectrum of existing ideologies. I feel like describing fascism as a product of the failure of socialism during the First World War is wrong in almost every case of actual fascist movements.
Italian fascism didn’t arise because of the failure of socialism to stop the war - it actually arose *in support of the war* and against those who “opposed Italian greatness and the fruits of war.” In the post-war period, it was a veterans association that was discontented because of the lackluster gains of Italy at the expense of her enemies in the Great War, and sought to radically expand and rejuvenate Italy. This was sort of the opposite of “reacting to the failure of international socialism in WW1” and the split that lead to Italian fascism had occurred over Mussolini’s support for the war, not the opposite.
Similarly, early German fascism was a movement of esoteric völkisch circles and veterans organizations that were embittered by the alleged Stab in the Back they received from “Jews, Bolsheviks, and Social-Democrats” and they sought to radically expand Germany and avenge the defeat they suffered in the First World War. While copying methods of organization and some rhetoric for the left (another interesting discussion I won’t go into here), they drew most of their ideological views from the far-right milieu of the former Wilhemine Empire, including anti-semitism and Lebensraum. This didn’t have much to do with the failure of socialism to stop the First World War - again these fascists believed the war was a good thing and their problem was really the conclusion of it.
Then there’s the entire group of fascists intellectuals like Evola and Rosenberg who drew *far* more from weird esotericism and reactionary ideas than they did from socialism. Granted, there was a somewhat revolutionary impulse on the part of early fascisms that were eventually purged, and I can copy-paste a discussion I had elsewhere on the forum about it, but yeah these were more nuanced than simply “offshoot of socialism”
Essentially, fascism didn’t really arise from the failure of socialism at the start of the First World War - it arose from discontent with the end of the war and the radicalization that many went through because of their war time experiences. Additionally, describing it as an offshoot of socialism is a little reductionist and is only telling one part of the larger story.
Well yes, part of the point of socialism was the international solidarity of the working class, the almost immediate move of the West European socialist parties to support their nation creates a rift in the psyche and the replacement of class based internationalist socialism with national based socialism which itself only reinforces tendencies found in the Labour Party, SPD and to some extent French Socialists who as democratic parties are working in the context of national parliaments.
Its notable that the rise is first in Italy which has the most hang wringing amongst the socialists because of its late entry. And the Fascist party is only founded in 1921 so you can hardly say it arose in support of the war except by redefining all the socialists who do support the war post facto as Fascist. The rise is much more related to post war events which include the peace treaties but also the Russian Revolution and other failed revolutions in Germany for example and where it appeals to national solidarity between classes rather than class conflict.
The definition of the class also having being supplanted , or subsumed by national identity, as opposed to the previous internationalist viewpoint.
However my main point is attempting to define political philosophies in terms of the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly circa 1795 as mediated by the Agitprop department of the Comintern circa 1933 is an exercise in futility. By this time both the Fascist and communist parties are anti democratic parties competing for the support of the masses so defining each other as the enemy is a valid strategy.
This is contrast to the much earlier development in particular in the anglo saxon tradition where the Conservatives, and Republicans both arise as mass parties of the working class, as indeed do the Labour parties of the British empire and eventually the Democrats in the 30s. The key feature probably being they are operating in a mass suffrage environment from much earlier and the 'conservative' elements in a lot of European societies are opposed to democratization in the first place.
Its notable that the rise is first in Italy which has the most hang wringing amongst the socialists because of its late entry. And the Fascist party is only founded in 1921 so you can hardly say it arose in support of the war except by redefining all the socialists who do support the war post facto as Fascist. The rise is much more related to post war events which include the peace treaties but also the Russian Revolution and other failed revolutions in Germany for example and where it appeals to national solidarity between classes rather than class conflict.
The definition of the class also having being supplanted , or subsumed by national identity, as opposed to the previous internationalist viewpoint.
However my main point is attempting to define political philosophies in terms of the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly circa 1795 as mediated by the Agitprop department of the Comintern circa 1933 is an exercise in futility. By this time both the Fascist and communist parties are anti democratic parties competing for the support of the masses so defining each other as the enemy is a valid strategy.
This is contrast to the much earlier development in particular in the anglo saxon tradition where the Conservatives, and Republicans both arise as mass parties of the working class, as indeed do the Labour parties of the British empire and eventually the Democrats in the 30s. The key feature probably being they are operating in a mass suffrage environment from much earlier and the 'conservative' elements in a lot of European societies are opposed to democratization in the first place.
I assume this is a joke? Some Trades Unions in Britain may at times have supported Communist, Co-operative, Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties but most can only be called socialist if we use the American definition. Many have been traditionally Economically left wing and Socially conservative but not all.
The route to a (sort of) left wing Churchill is probably through one country conservatism as espoused by Randolph, split the party and arrange a political alliance for him with the left wing of the Liberal party, Winston then follows in his footsteps and ,as so often in political families, the son becomes more radical than the father.
For him to turn to Fascism or Socialism needs such a drastic change in circumstances that the "him" who did it would not be the same person.
Fascism never really had strong roots in the UK so I honestly can't see why he'd go for a foreign imported ideology, considering his other views.
British Fascism wasn't really British Fascism in the same way that British Communism wasn't really British Communism. Both took their cues from a Foreign Power and for all his flaws Churchill would never stand for that.
Socialism on the other hand... Well, I honestly cannot see him going all in on it. But if circumstances changed I could easily see him finding a way to sell himself as one. He was nothing if not a pragmatist.
At the very least, the one he was a member of was considering that it expelled him over his joining the Tories.
Fascism never really had strong roots in the UK so I honestly can't see why he'd go for a foreign imported ideology, considering his other views.
British Fascism wasn't really British Fascism in the same way that British Communism wasn't really British Communism. Both took their cues from a Foreign Power and for all his flaws Churchill would never stand for that.
Socialism on the other hand... Well, I honestly cannot see him going all in on it. But if circumstances changed I could easily see him finding a way to sell himself as one. He was nothing if not a pragmatist.
It depends on the particular time period. But in Churchill's particular period, of which we are discussing, the main unions tended to be fairly Socialist.
At the very least, the one he was a member of was considering that it expelled him over his joining the Tories.
This was the main thrust of my argument too - you are claiming that fascism can be best understood as an offshoot of the socialist/syndicalist left, but I’m pointing out that it draws from and has a rich history among the ‘vulgar right’ and nationalist circles in Europe as well. Attempting to claim that the legacy of fascism was wholly a child of the left or a child of the right is useless because it’s parentage is very complicated. I was disputing the idea that fascism was solely born from an intra-left crisis over the First World War and the replacing of international socialism with national socialism because that framework means we should understand fascism as a socialism based on the national community instead of class. I think this only captures a small part of fascism, and obscures its association with existing right wing milieus in every country in which it has existed. For example, we cannot meaningfully understand Italian fascist-corporatism as a solely socialist project and ignore its influences with reactionary political ideas.
I take issue with your framework of “anti-democratic mass parties” not being things we can define in meaningful opposition to one another. In both Italy and Germany, fascist parties were enlisted by pre-existing political and economic elites to fight against the left and fascism thrived on presenting itself as the only viable option against Bolshevism. Removing this element and presenting both communist and fascist parties as part of the same anti-democratic mass milieu seems like it is conflating both as essentially the same within a political system and fascism won by chance or skill rather than understanding its role within its contemporary political scene.
Last edited:
I think the left right label is inherently misleading, as there are other perspectives ( libertarian in modern terms vs corporatist, collectivist vs individualist etc) and none of these are really in opposition just elements of a scale of varying shades. But the fact remains that the Fascist leaderships arise from a socialist or syndicalist tradition in the main, its not the only one I admit and when in power, or competing for power do so with policies from the Socialist/Syndicalist tradition so its not a small part of fascism its the underlying rationale, other things get overlayed, antisemetism in German, Catholicism in Spain for example and anticommunism in most places.
Fascist Manifesto - Wikipedia
The Nazi Party 25 Points (1920) - document extract
The Nazi Party 25 Points - a political manifesto issued in February 1920, outlining the party's core political values, ideology and mission.
alphahistory.com
Gives the initial manifesto of the Italian fascists and Nazis, these drawn very heavily on syndcalist and socialist traditions. And what else would you expect its a mass party attempting to appeal to a mass audience in terms they understand to be in their self interest.
And for fun above is the National Bolshevist Manifesto of 1933
Part of the definitional issue is the USSR via comintern defines their direct competition for the proletariat as opposition to Socialism and extends that definition to any opposition to socialism ergo if you are opposed to socialism because you object to nationalisation, of industry you are a fascist rather than someone who thinks nationalisation is a bad idea.
Now does that make fascism wholly a child of the left, no. And the milieu both left and right of all the parent societies colours things. And we can define anti democratic mass parties as being in opposition to each other, a national ADMP based on an ethnicity is fundamentally in opposition to an Internationalist ADMP based on a class or based on a religion. The British Union of Fascists was 25% female because modern fascism opposed the sacking of women when they got married.
My main contention though is that Fascism and Socialism as practiced in most of continental Europe ( I would exclude France and Germany in the main) is in fact way outside British political tradition, especially that of the Labour party, to the extent that between them the Communists and Fascists have managed less than 10 MPs elected in a century ( all commies btw).
Churchill is inherently an establishmentarian by nature, so either would be impossible without ASB.